The collectivist, nanny-state, big government, takers just managed to win a second term for one of the most inept at policy but genius at campaigning presidents in the history of this once great nation. The left is already making the case that their win is a vote for tax increases. That’s because, in their eyes, their expanded plans for a bigger government requires more money. It is their money after all, and since they allow you to keep some of It, because “You didn’t build that”, after all, you should shut the hell up and go along. Besides this extra money is needed to provide more of these “services” that the takers were promised. Of course anyone with two firing neurons knows that these government services really are about the left using money they take by force from the productive, to buy more votes from the ones they then shower largesse on.

This strategy works, and that is because people that depend for 5% of their income from government hold elected officials hostage, while people that depend on 50% or more of their income from government are held hostage by their elected officials. The number of people that depend on government for a living now, as was pointed out, has reached a point where that voting block all but guarantees the nanny staters can co-opt every election by employing the scare tactics so successfully used during this last one. And while I am glad that the shit sandwich the left build over the last 4 years is now theirs to eat, I hold very little hope for the Republic.

I have talked to several lefties that are ecstatic about their win. Heck we even had one of our old timers drop by just to gloat and rub it in right here at RTFTLC. They all love the fact that their America hating, collectivist wealth redistribution loving, golfer in chief gets to now really got to work on this country. You know, to fix the fact that it is such a non-Euro-socialist wasteland. The fact that we have but to look across the pond to see how the Euro-socialist nanny state game plays out escapes them. Maybe they will catch on when this same scenario starts playing out closer at home, in California, and we all end up having to bail out that bastion of nanny state experimentation.

The unraveling is already going on. Defense contractors, like Boeing, are going to cut more jobs. And you will see – or maybe you wont, because the LSM will hide them, since they don’t fit the narrative – like this, as employers, raked over the coals, react. And as the pool of people that can be robbed blind dries up, we will get more and more borrowing to keep the left’s big machine running. But it will not stop at the economic ruination that higher taxes, higher unemployment, more entitlement spending to buy votes, Obamacare, and the $8 trillion, or more, of debt that this all will add to our woes.

Comments are closed.

If they want their tax increases, I say we let them choke on it. The House GOP should let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire once it looks like a sane deal on spending can’t be reached. It still won’t resolve the deficit and will turn the Democrats’ supposed mandate (they do NOT have one on anything) radioactive.

What amazes me is the lefty tools around here (Detroi area) who voted Dopey-Mcchange II INSIST that the defecit is from the unfunded Iraq/Afghan wars. I tell them that this administration pulled out of Iraq and the defecit is unchanged. How can they still defend that chestnut? Anyway, I agree: leet the tax cuts expire, then they CAN’T blame the resulting collapse on Bush, can they?

We need to be careful with all the “moocher” rhetoric about our ideological foes.

While it is true that an increasingly larger percentage of people depend on government handouts, it is still a fairly small minority that subsist completely on them. The percent of the population that are true parasites – those with zero shame of spending decades on the dole with no intention of contributing anything – they are already lost to us. Attempting to win them over to to a classical liberal ideology would be like attempting to debate a pickpocket.

The much broader coalition that wins elections for democrats are the people that believe that the democrats are about fairness and solving big problems with government. In particular this includes young people. The startup where I work, for example, is filled with twenty and thrity-something software developers and designers – none of them moochers or welfare queens by any stretch of the imagination. All are highly educated professionals, and they vote solidly democratic.

Why? What do they stand to gain? Moral purity and hatred of “messy” private sector solutions. They vote that way because they believe it makes them better people – that a democratic vote is right. They vote that way because they perceive themselves as “knowing better”, and thus support political systems that “know better” on behalf of the average citizen. We need to make the moral argument against that vote by focusing on freedom and the immorality of the state. We also need to make the practical argument – that the central planning statist philosophy just doesn’t work as well.

The republicans lost because their practical argument accepted the democrats’ statist premise and their moral argument was easily dismissed by secularists and religious people with different values.

Though the trend is worsening, it is not accurate to paint all of Obama’s supporters as parasites, and we won’t get far doing so.

We need to make the moral argument against that vote by focusing on freedom and the immorality of the state.

IMHO, saying things like “immorality of the state” is far too ideological. That won’t win moderates over with that. That just paints you as a rigid ideologue. It’s far too black and white. Black and white went out the window a few decades ago.

Why? What do they stand to gain? Moral purity and hatred of “messy” private sector solutions. They vote that way because they believe it makes them better people – that a democratic vote is right. They vote that way because they perceive themselves as “knowing better”, and thus support political systems that “know better” on behalf of the average citizen.

Assuming people don’t actually believe in or support moderate policies (to provide greater opportunity to a greater number of people, while still providing plenty of opportunity for the rich to get richer and for companies to thrive) is counter-productive. Suggesting these people vote Democrat because they think they “know better” is just insulting. Insults don’t attract people (it also makes it sound like you “know better”, and so also makes you sound like a hypocrite). Again, it’s counter-productive. That is, if you want the expand the tent. That’s the choice I mentioned in another thread – do you actually want to expand the tent, or do you want to keep ideological purity and get smaller. (Crap, that’s a black and white choice….)

There’s a good argument over at Ace of Spades HQ which says, don’t be too glum, a major factor of the Tyrant’s re-election might just have been plain dumb bad luck.

TheContrarian is right, though it should be pointed out you only need a voting block of moochers and looters to elect a president. But there are many who are forced on welfare or simply have no option, or because of the state of the economy and sheer damage caused by anti-capitalist doctrine and policy, cannot find jobs to sustain them or give them the jobs their educate surely demanded: why work at Walmart for, from what I can tell, alms ($6 an hour is it?).

But I don’t see any majority, correct me if I’m wrong, in the GOP et al, who actually want no welfare at all. Not the Tea Party certainly, and they’re the standard bearers.

But I don’t see any majority, correct me if I’m wrong, in the GOP et al, who actually want no welfare at all. Not the Tea Party certainly, and they’re the standard bearers.

I’ll support that. Welfare isn’t necessarily a bad thing, even though I’d prefer it be entirely state-run instead of federal at all. The big issues with it are how we pay for it, what we expect from recipients, and controlling waste, abuse, and fraud.

But I don’t see any majority, correct me if I’m wrong, in the GOP et al, who actually want no welfare at all. Not the Tea Party certainly, and they’re the standard bearers.

Poosh, you are correct NO republican wants zero welfare. What they want is welfare that makes sense, and then, for those that truly need it. The main problem I have with entitlements is not that they are welfare, but that their primary purpose, contrary to what the doo-gooders pretend it is, isn’t to help those that need help, but to create a dependant class government can control and assure certain politicians votes from. Practically all welfare has become a political tool that no matter how broke or shitty the particular welfare program in question turns out to be, never gets done away with. That’s because the main purpose of these welfare systems was never to help anyone but the politicians that get votes from the fools addicted to these systems.

For example, I have for decades pointed out that if the assholes behind healthcare reform really were worried about providing healthcare to people, government could do it cheap and very simply. Start with the creation of a universal catastrophic insurance pool that would kick in and protect citizens when their annual expenses reached a threshold that was mean tested against income. Couple that with a pared down version of Medicare to cover the truly poor – and then not for perpetuity – and you would have all the bases covered. Then make people financially responsible for their medical costs if they opt not to buy insurance, and leave it at that. It would control costs and provide the coverage people needed, as long as they opted for it. Everyone would be protected from having medical expenses bankrupt them, and people would still have the choice and the consequences of their choice.

But the healthcare push that has left us looking at the giant Obamacare shit sandwich has never been about providing healthcare, let alone quality healthcare, and/or at a decent cost. The main purpose of this shit sandwich has always been to allow the nanny-staters running government to eventually break any healthcare system down. Obamacare will never result in savings. That was all slight of hand. What it will do is result in massive cost inflation, rationing, and a reduction in access to services as well as quality. That’s because the goal is a system that remains unsustainable, so the political class can then force a panicked and scared people into a single payer system. After all, the single payer system is the one that gives the nanny-staters the best tool to exercise the largest amount of control on the stupid sheep that have no other choice.

And it is not a coincidence that Obamacare seems to excuse the very politicians that straddled us with Obamacare and all their best buddies from the mess that it will be, while fucking the rest of us all over.

There are hundreds of other such examples. We could discuss the stupid practice of paying single mothers to pop out babies, or the fact that government runs a Ponzi scheme and today sells it as a retirement vehicle. Don’t get me talking about the ludicrous move to allow 99 months of unemployment while basically taking every other possible action to guarantee the economy can not restart and generate jobs. There are countless other such examples of failed systems or policies around such systems that simply never get shut down and done away with.

I have no problem with welfare if it wasn’t a vote buying tool. And yeah, maybe we should make welfare, and certainly a repeated need for welfare, something we look down on again. It certainly will not affect the current generation that has no shame, but it might eventually make this something that only thoe truly in need opt for.

The main problem I have with entitlements is not that they are welfare, but that their primary purpose, contrary to what the doo-gooders pretend it is, isn’t to help those that need help, but to create a dependant class government can control and assure certain politicians votes from.

Live in the UK. Know this all too well :(

It just astounds me how because one wants less government and welfare reform and cutting down, suddenly you’re a anarcho-captialist !

Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted ‘O’. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don’t talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Democrat friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Democrats from your Facebook account.

Yeah, crazies are out there of all stripes. But when someone is talking about imposing a Carthaginian Peace on his family, friends, and professional life over which corporate politician is in the Oval Office; it’s time to guide that guy into a hobby. Something with arts and crafts or anything else that gets him away from the Internet.

Nothing with scissors though. Or involving the building of bunkers.
It certainly doesn’t sound like some of these people get much joy from life.
Perhaps even just someone lending them the BG box set might be sufficient?

IMHO, saying things like “immorality of the state” is far too ideological. That won’t win moderates over with that. That just paints you as a rigid ideologue. It’s far too black and white. Black and white went out the window a few decades ago

There are three errors here.

1. This assumes that my statement reflects the manner and tone in which classical liberals should make their case. It does not.

2. The phrase “immorality of the state” does not imply any particular ideology.

3. Black and white may not be fashionable but they exist. If we throw them out and adopt the “gray” premise of the left, then we lose before we even begin. The phrase “too black and white” does not even really make sense strictly speaking.

Assuming people don’t actually believe in or support moderate policies (to provide greater opportunity to a greater number of people, while still providing plenty of opportunity for the rich to get richer and for companies to thrive) is counter-productive.

Nothing I wrote suggests this assumption. I was describing a segment of democratic voters, not all of them. The ones I was describing are not especially moderate, though some would identify with your description.

Suggesting these people vote Democrat because they think they “know better” is just insulting. Insults don’t attract people (it also makes it sound like you “know better”, and so also makes you sound like a hypocrite). Again, it’s counter-productive. That is, if you want the expand the tent. That’s the choice I mentioned in another thread – do you actually want to expand the tent, or do you want to keep ideological purity and get smaller. (Crap, that’s a black and white choice….)

Again, your assuming that that paragraph is meant to characterize the manner in which we should convince those who disagree with small government. It does not. It is a description of the problem. . A productive conversation with a leftist would not include my insulting them for thinking they “know better”.

All individuals with confidence in their political ideas feel that they “know better” than those who disagree. The difference is that for leftists the belief extends into dictating how others ought to live their lives and dispose of their property (for their own good, of course). The specific arguments and style we should use to counter this belief are separate questions.

Your last sentence both presents a false dichotomy and incorrectly assumes a concern on my part with “ideological purity”. No one wants to expand the tent as much as I do, so long as it is a tent of supporters of freedom.

1. This assumes that my statement reflects the manner and tone in which classical liberals should make their case. It does not.

2. The phrase “immorality of the state” does not imply any particular ideology.

3. Black and white may not be fashionable but they exist. If we throw them out and adopt the “gray” premise of the left, then we lose before we even begin. The phrase “too black and white” does not even really make sense strictly speaking.

First, thanks for your response (many choose not to).

1. Fair enough. I’d be interested in how the case is made without resorting to rigid ideology and insults, because that seems to be how the case is presented currently. The case seems to be aimed at the people who already agree.

2. I think believing the mere existence of a state to be immoral is absolutely an ideological position. You’ve backed yourself right into a corner from the get-go. The people you’re trying to get alongside will just look at you funny and back away slowly and (hopefully) thank you for your time.

3. You’re actually arguing for rigidity here. The world, including America, isn’t as simple as 0 or 1. Now more so than ever as we all mix together so much and societies aren’t homogenous. That’s not the ‘gray premise of the left’, that’s reality. Unless the right adapts to the reality of the demographic make-up of the country, they tent will only get smaller.

Nothing I wrote suggests this assumption. I was describing a segment of democratic voters, not all of them. The ones I was describing are not especially moderate, though some would identify with your description.

Ok. Since I’ve been on this blog I’ve read very little that actually corresponds to what I think most liberals actually believe. I know zero liberals who believe what Poosh and Alex and others continually describe. It’s why I constantly roll my eyes whenever I read what they write. It might make them feel better but they’re fooling themselves.
This Daily Show episode is a perfect analysis of this fantasy-land.http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-november-7-2012-nate-silver
I think Fox News and other like-minded pundits etc helped Obama enormously because they invented a whole different reality and got people to believe it. Lots of people were actually shocked that Romney lost, but it wasn’t surprising at all. It was exactly as the polls suggested. Why people were convinced to rely on ‘feeling’ and ‘belief’ as opposed to stone-cold data and arithmatic is just astounding.

Above, you said “They vote that way because they perceive themselves as “knowing better”, and thus support political systems that “know better” on behalf of the average citizen“.

You’re talking about people that you know personally, so obviously I can’t dispute anything you say about them. But your theory doesn’t sound right to me. You even seem to contradict the ‘thus’ as you go on to say in your most recent post: “All individuals with confidence in their political ideas feel that they “know better” than those who disagree”. If so, then ‘thus’ would mean they vote Democrat (that’s what you said in your first comment). But they don’t (because there are Republicans who feel that way too). So I’m a bit confused – even by your own admission “they ‘know better’ and therefore vote Democrat” doesn’t seem to hold water. Perhaps I misunderstood?

Again, your assuming that that paragraph is meant to characterize the manner in which we should convince those who disagree with small government. It does not. It is a description of the problem. . A productive conversation with a leftist would not include my insulting them for thinking they “know better”.

Ok, cool.

The difference is that for leftists the belief extends into dictating how others ought to live their lives and dispose of their property (for their own good, of course).

1. Certainly not when it comes to social issues. Then it’s the Republican Party that wants to dictate how people live their lives.

2. No, not for “their own good”, but for the good of wider society, so that the most people have the greatest chance of being successful (rich, happy, healthy etc). Although, ultimately of course, a richer, happier, and healthier society is going to be for “their own good”, so in that sense I would agree with you.

The specific arguments and style we should use to counter this belief are separate questions.

Perhaps. Although shouldn’t they be very similar? Otherwise you run the risk of trying to sell something you don’t even believe yourself. I.e. deceiving people.

Your last sentence both presents a false dichotomy and incorrectly assumes a concern on my part with “ideological purity”.

My last sentence:

That’s the choice I mentioned in another thread – do you actually want to expand the tent, or do you want to keep ideological purity and get smaller. (Crap, that’s a black and white choice….)

I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all – there’s a ceiling on the number of people that will agree that “the state is immoral”. The vast vast majority of people who will accept that are already voting that way.

No one wants to expand the tent as much as I do, so long as it is a tent of supporters of freedom.

I’d love to explore this some more if you’re keen, because I don’t understand it. To me, what you mean by “supporters of freedom” actually means ideological purity when you break it down. In reality, what it means on the ground. I get the impression that my idea of “freedom” is quite different from yours. Nobody is ever going to really disagree with the general concept of ‘freedom’. It’s when you get into the detail that differences start to become obvious. To me, basing everything on what I assume your definition of freedom is (based on your comments here and your essay) significantly limits the choices a society has to determine it’s structure. For example it means no universal healthcare and it determines tax rates. To me that reduces freedom for at least as many individuals as it increases it for, and it most certainly decreases the democratic freedom of a society to make collective decisions about how best to operate. In times of crisis it eliminates having crisis-solving or alleviating options.

2. I think believing the mere existence of a state to be immoral is absolutely an ideological position. You’ve backed yourself right into a corner from the get-go. The people you’re trying to get alongside will just look at you funny and back away slowly and (hopefully) thank you for your time

.

There is a misunderstanding here. When I said “the immorality of the state” I did not mean to imply “the mere existence of a state is immoral”. I meant literally what I wrote, which would be “the things that are immoral about the state”.

3. You’re actually arguing for rigidity here. The world, including America, isn’t as simple as 0 or 1. Now more so than ever as we all mix together so much and societies aren’t homogenous. That’s not the ‘gray premise of the left’, that’s reality. Unless the right adapts to the reality of the demographic make-up of the country, they tent will only get smaller.

This notion is very common and it operates from a premise of moral relativism. Reality is “too complex” for people to make clear moral judgments about right and wrong. Who are you to argue that women ought to have the right to drive cars? Don’t you know that there are numerous societies? Many people believe otherwise! That is reality! Adjust yourself to the grayness of the pack.

This type of thinking conflates a few things. Yes, the world is diverse. There are numerous value systems. However it doesn’t follow that all of those value systems are equally compatible with a free society. All societies in their organization must implicitly answer numerous moral questions, establishing their “oughts”. Classical liberalism is not unique in this regard. The society advocated by leftists has its own normative assumptions (moral grayness itself being an ought).

Ok. Since I’ve been on this blog I’ve read very little that actually corresponds to what I think most liberals actually believe. I know zero liberals who believe what Poosh and Alex and others continually describe. It’s why I constantly roll my eyes whenever I read what they write. It might make them feel better but they’re fooling themselves.
This Daily Show episode is a perfect analysis of this fantasy-land.http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-november-7-2012-nate-silver
I think Fox News and other like-minded pundits etc helped Obama enormously because they invented a whole different reality and got people to believe it. Lots of people were actually shocked that Romney lost, but it wasn’t surprising at all. It was exactly as the polls suggested. Why people were convinced to rely on ‘feeling’ and ‘belief’ as opposed to stone-cold data and arithmatic is just astounding.

I agree with a lot of this.

You even seem to contradict the ‘thus’ as you go on to say in your most recent post: “All individuals with confidence in their political ideas feel that they “know better” than those who disagree”. If so, then ‘thus’ would mean they vote Democrat (that’s what you said in your first comment). But they don’t (because there are Republicans who feel that way too). So I’m a bit confused – even by your own admission “they ‘know better’ and therefore vote Democrat” doesn’t seem to hold water. Perhaps I misunderstood?

The object of the expression “know better” was different in the two contexts. In my original paragraph I meant that the sort of democratic voters that work in my office feel they know better than the average citizen with regard to how to manage their own life. Your response objected to the use of that phrase, and so I used it again to make a general point about people’s beliefs. This was imprecise on my part.

1. Certainly not when it comes to social issues. Then it’s the Republican Party that wants to dictate how people live their lives.

This is debatable issue by issue though I agree that the democrats are generally better here. Still, I don’t think that the threat republicans pose to social issues is proportional to the threat democrats pose to individual liberty.

Perhaps. Although shouldn’t they be very similar? Otherwise you run the risk of trying to sell something you don’t even believe yourself. I.e. deceiving people.

Not necessarily. I’m a former teacher. We speak candidly about students in the faculty room, but when it comes time to sit down with a kid and win over his effort, we have to be measured and thoughtful in how we make our case. There is no deception.

I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all – there’s a ceiling on the number of people that will agree that “the state is immoral”. The vast vast majority of people who will accept that are already voting that way.

Again, I never argued that “the state is immoral”. The false dichotomy is the idea that the right must either compromise on its beliefs or accept a shrinking “tent”. This ignores the obvious third option of getting more people to support their beliefs.

Leftists frequently give this “advice” to right-wingers. “Stop with your rigid ideals and principles already! Accept that society is diverse! If you want to expand your party, adopt our premise about the role of the state, and accept some of our policies. That is the way to grow your tent!” It is tactically clever. It shifts the political center and moves the debate from “Should there be a department of education?” to “how much should we fund the department of education?” If we concede the necessity of such a department, agreeing that it serves the goal of “education”, who do you think wins that argument nine times out of ten? Conservatives that follow such advice deserve to fail.

I’d love to explore this some more if you’re keen, because I don’t understand it. To me, what you mean by “supporters of freedom” actually means ideological purity when you break it down. In reality, what it means on the ground. I get the impression that my idea of “freedom” is quite different from yours. Nobody is ever going to really disagree with the general concept of ‘freedom’. It’s when you get into the detail that differences start to become obvious. To me, basing everything on what I assume your definition of freedom is (based on your comments here and your essay) significantly limits the choices a society has to determine it’s structure. For example it means no universal healthcare and it determines tax rates. To me that reduces freedom for at least as many individuals as it increases it for, and it most certainly decreases the democratic freedom of a society to make collective decisions about how best to operate. In times of crisis it eliminates having crisis-solving or alleviating options

This is the heart of the disagreement between principled classical liberals and principled modern liberals – different values. My essay about voting (posted here a few days ago) explains this difference. It can be thought of as a difference in the definition of “freedom”, though I don’t argue this way as I am a former English teacher and a stickler for words having meanings. I see it as a dichotomy between freedom (the absence of state coercion) and security (the absence of risk).

For you, universal healthcare increases “freedom” because individuals don’t have to worry about their insurance. For me, it increases security but reduces freedom. It comes down to individual values. Many long complex political debates, in spite of both sides trying to appear factual and objective, are, at bottom, two people who just prefer different things. This is why I oppose World Government. The world should have a variety of societies. Modern liberalism is one particular mixture of freedom and security. Already several countries practice it. I choose not to live in those countries.

I know, but TheContrarian is clearly taking time and effort to write out his thoughts: it’s just harsh watching him waste his time with irrational tools like CM. Experience is the best teacher though, true….

I haven’t been around for a while so I will come to my own conclusions about regulars here. I try to argue in good faith and assume the best of my opponents. I try to remember that I was once a liberal myself, and it was a patient and smart libertarian that got me to question my views. If someone is being disingenuous or just arguing for the sake of arguing I can usually pick up on it pretty quickly.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then the would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” ~ Carl Sagan

BTW, here’s something righties might enjoy.
Go to about 3.28 on this video, make sure the sound is off, and then pretend you’re in the foreground punching him hard in the balls. Right through until about 4.00. You’re welcome.